


Judicial Discipline, Social Punishment, and Society: A Foucaultian Take on Good Omens

by write_away



Category: Good Omens (TV), Meta - Fandom
Genre: Foucault, Foucault has his grubby gay philosophical hands all over this fandom anyway, I provide as much explanation as I can!, Meta, Society and power and identity and language all intersect, and I'm a HUGE nerd who loves lit analysis, this should be accessible to anyone, why not make it explicit?
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2019-06-28
Updated: 2019-06-28
Packaged: 2020-05-28 16:25:05
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 2,364
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/19397893
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/write_away/pseuds/write_away
Summary: In which the author nerds out over literary theory and applies her knowledge of Foucault toGood Omens(TV). This meta examines the roles of power, punishment, identity, and language and how they intersect in the character of Aziraphale and his relationship with Heaven.An excerpt:An ideological institution (and all institutions are ideological, mind you) without obedience fragments and breaks. It loses its ability to exert strength over its members because if people can disobey without consequences, why shouldn’t they? This is part of why punishment comes into play. Aziraphale turning his back on the Apocalypse must have consequences or, excuse the pun, all Hell will break loose in Heaven.





	Judicial Discipline, Social Punishment, and Society: A Foucaultian Take on Good Omens

**Author's Note:**

> This was entirely self-indulgent and started as a conversation on the Good Ominyan server that I mentioned briefly on my Tumblr and some kind, anonymous soul asked me to share some and it turned into this. I decided not to punish your dashboards with this long, long meta, and so I'm posting it here instead.
> 
> Enjoy! Come talk with me about lit theory and Good Omens anytime on Tumblr at theirdarkreturning.

So first of all, please forgive me for inaccuracies, vagueness, etc. I’ve been out of grad school for a year now and haven’t been able to apply lit theory frequently, plus I’m going from notes because my textbook is in storage. This was actually a great opportunity to go back into my notes and work out my brain! This is a mostly TV show-based analysis, but I do pull a few lines from the book to help paint a full picture. 

OK, SO: tl;dr Foucault was a pretty prolific philosopher, scholar, and literary critic. Some of his most well-known works are _The History of Sexuality_ and _Discipline and Punishment_ , both of which focus on the idea that **power is both judicial and discursive** (I’ll go more into depth on that in a sec), and that **the norms and taboos that emerge in society are** ** _not_** **natural** , thus in fact requiring some sort of disciplinary actions both formal and informal to get and keep people in line. Further, norms and taboos are in fact **formed by the reactions of those in power to certain behaviors and actions**. For instance, according to Foucault, the concept of “period-typical homophobia” that you see in Ao3 tags is… anachronistic at _best_ if not entirely inaccurate and inapplicable if the period being written in is before around the mid-1800s, aka when homosexuality as an identity was first formed. [1]

To understand **how an institution or society works** (hello, Althusser and ideological state apparatuses aka ISAs which I will NOT go into, but they’re HERE), it’s important to **think about how power, punishment, language, and identity are connected.**

Essentially, power flows in all directions (we all have some!), but Foucault has identified two main **sources of this power, sources that have the most influence in a society.** These are the sources of power that can make change and establish norms. The first of these is called **discursive, which in layman’s terms is the expectations and social norms** that are built into the system and get internalized. 

For instance, you are not actually obligated to tell your doctor private and personal information, but for the most part, we do because we know it is expected of us _and_ there is a benefit to us if we do. Sometimes that benefit is something positive, like getting proper care. In another situation, the benefit might be avoiding negative consequences such as shame, ostracization, and guilt. However, these consequences are informal and social in nature (though no less painful!)

The other type of power is **judicial** . (Note that judicial does not necessarily only mean governmental law, though it often does. Religious law can also be included in this category, especially in places where the two are conflated and intertwined). This is when legal ramifications come into play - ritualized ones - because the **social norms established through discursive means have now become** **_codified._ ** **They become institutions** \- schools and religion and government and family units and honestly, everything is an institution, just - Google Althusser if you want your head to hurt terribly. 

The codification of social norms is not always necessary to exert power! **The punishments that result from judicial power exertions are often intertwined with the social punishments.**

**Discursive and judicial power are inextricably intertwined.** The institutions formed through them have incredible power to enforce ideologies.

Foucault talks about **confession** in _History of Sexuality_ \- both the discursive act of it and the religiously ritualized version - and I won’t go into it much here, but I urge you to think back to the doctor’s office example and consider how providing that information is a sort of confession in its own right. Consider how coming out is now seen as almost a necessity for the contemporary LGBTQ person, how we are _expected_ to come out and widely share our pasts and our desires and other information which is frankly private lest we face misrecognition of our identities, face the risk of being locked out of our community. And yet? When we do confess? What are the risks we face then? 

It’s a double-edged sword. It always is. That’s how it holds power over us. 

I’m going to talk pretty extensively about how **identity** plays into all of this in a moment, but remember these things as we move forward: Again, **power, punishment, language, and identity are interconnected** and by understanding those connections, we can better see how institutions wield that power to enforce norms. 

Since we’re talking swords, let’s bring this back to _Good Omens,_ specifically to Aziraphale and his Role.

By **Aziraphale’s Role, I mean his identity as an angel.** He’s been given a position - an angel, specifically a Principality though “people make jokes about that these days,” indicating that his particular duty is less important than fitting into the general concept of ethereal - and he’s, well. Not exactly good at it. **His identity as an angel is important to him because it helps him understand the place he holds in the hierarchy of power in society.** By being an angel, he gains quite a bit of privilege both constructed via norms and through real, physical advantages that he has over other beings (though most of those physical advantages are _also_ afforded to demons, so the value of angelic power comes back to the language used around it). 

Here’s the thing: **Aziraphale could have gotten away with not being a good angel.** If he had just remained incompetent at his job, he’d have been _fine._ Social norms are _not_ unbendable - he can be a bit of a hedonist, he can love his books and food, and he will only suffer the mild consequence of being a bit strange to his peers. There is a certain amount of wiggle room he is afforded.

(And surely that sounds familiar! We all experience this as we navigate through communities and social situations.)

Remember when I mentioned **social norms being codified? That codification is often what gives it more weight.** So, in the book when Aziraphale says, “‘It’s not that I disagree with you [...] It’s just that I’m not allowed to disobey,’” we see an instance of that codification. He can collect first edition Oscar Wilde texts to his heart’s content and eat all the sushi he wants, there’s no _rule_ against that no matter how weird and gross Gabriel thinks it is, but there _is_ a rule against disobedience. 

**An** **ideological institution (and** ** _all_** **institutions are ideological, mind you) without obedience fragments and breaks.** It loses its ability to exert strength over its members because if people can disobey without consequences, why shouldn’t they? This is part of why **punishment** comes into play. Aziraphale turning his back on the Apocalypse _must_ have consequences or, excuse the pun, all Hell will break loose in Heaven. 

(And I think this is a natural conclusion that fandom has understood without question! I’ve seen other metas discuss this, I’ve seen fics portray it. Foucault has his grubby gay philosophical hands all over this fandom and I LOVE IT. I’m simply trying to make the direct connection.)

_Why_ must he be punished? Because his **non-normative behavior is a threat to operations** . It always has been, of course. They just didn’t have the means by which to _do_ anything productive about it. They tried isolation and shame and intimidation when they noticed him becoming too human. It didn’t work. He had Crowley. 

(A lot of this analysis CAN apply to our favorite demon, but I’m focusing on Aziraphale mostly because I think it’s a bit more clear cut and dramatic with him and also I think he holds more stock in his identity as an angel than Crowley to his as a demon. I will note here, however, that Crowley caring less arguably cements his role inside the institution as caring less is what a demon is _supposed_ to do). 

So, Aziraphale is non-normative. He’s engaging in taboos. He’s fraternizing with a demon and stopping the Apocalypse and being unrepentantly human. Remember, **Aziraphale has power! And he is an angel! And he’s using that power to change what an angel is** \- or rather how they act - because if engaging in those activities doesn’t _stop_ him from being an angel, and if he’s still an angel and can participate in taboos, then what is the angelic system anyway?

He **either needs to be re-assimilated through punishment or expelled to save the institution from devolving into chaos as its power ebbs away.** (If you’re a nerdy English major like me, this may call to mind the hero of desire in a Realist text. I am not even going to _start_ on that theory, because that would make this meta double in length) 

(A note: I **count Heaven and Hell as a singular institution** in this case because Hell exists solely as a reaction to Heaven - so **expelling him does** **_not_ ** **mean Falling**. Falling is a punishment that would try to make him conform to another identity within the same system rather than get him out of it.)

So they don’t want to let him take that power. No ideological institution wants to breed doubt and confusion and chaos. Structure and order is the way to go. 

What’s interesting to me about the show and Foucault is that Heaven gets its punishment and - interestingly - Aziraphale gets away with it all anyway. **He is** **_so non-normative_ ** **that the system has literally stopped working for him.**

Let me explain:

Again, they can’t make him Fall because that’s not actually removing him from the sphere of power (and spheres of power are a whole other ballgame, folks). It’s just… shifting him Over There. No, they want him _gone_ , hence the infernal fire. 

And here’s the thing… it works? Even though Crowley!Az struck fear into the hearts of the angels, even though Aziraphale survived, he still (seemingly) obeyed orders to walk forward into his own execution. **The act of giving and obeying an order is yet another display of power. Language and actions are important in this game.** They’re the main tools we’ve got. 

And we’re all stuck in this system! It’s not possible to live outside institutions. We are influenced by them even when we think we’re not. **Actively pushing against an institution is still living within it because our push is reactionary.** There’s power in story and in who is telling it and in who is giving the orders and in who is taking them. There is power in listening to stories and there is power in watching another person step into the flames because they were told to do so.

Especially if this person is in trouble specifically for disobedience.

(And of course this gets me thinking about **Aziraphale trying so hard to find the language that will help him justify stopping the Apocalypse** , I think about how he looks for words and ways to argue that the ineffable plan is asking this of him because that’s the way he can **work the system from within.** He doesn’t have much other choice without risking it all. He’s constantly on the search for language that will justify his disobedience, that will help him work it from the inside). 

In that image of Aziraphale stepping into flames (even though it’s not actually him), **Heaven takes back a little bit of its power.** Not all - Aziraphale took handfuls and pulled and he is not letting go - but some. Enough to re-establish some norms, to reinforce the hierarchy. 

Here’s where it gets interesting to me. **Both Crowley and Aziraphale are punished according to judicial law and power. It doesn’t go great for the institution.** Generally when this happens, the **institution retaliates socially, through discursive means.** You lose your reputation, your friends, your family…

Crowley and Aziraphale didn’t just get away with it in a Foucaultian society. This is the Game of Thrones and they just freaking _won._

Here’s why:

**_They were punished socially too and they didn’t care_ ** **.**

Look, it’s not that Heaven and Hell didn’t retaliate socially. It’s just that there was no love left to lose when they extricated themselves from the system. **The institution has no power over them because punishment literally doesn’t matter.** Punishments are made to keep people in line, to keep them following the rules both codified and social. If you don’t care about the punishment, if it can’t hurt you, then it doesn’t do what it’s meant to.

They gave those rules the finger the moment they did the body swap. They have no regard for the expectations anymore. Aziraphale, an angel who in the past has shown great regard for the hierarchy of power in Heaven, who seeks out upper management when trying to locate the Antichrist because he trusts and respects his superiors _that_ much, calls Archangel Michael “dude” and asks for a towel. He makes a mockery of Hell’s court and asks for a rubber duck - and even if you say he’s posing as Crowley here, that’s not a particularly demonic request. 

Heaven and Hell couldn’t control them if they _tried_. This is the version of the story that gets told.

They _won_. 

It’s truly a unique situation. Had they been human with human problems and relationships, I don’t think the social ramifications would have been as bearable for them. **In real life, even when judicial punishment does not occur, the social punishment can be incredibly painful as we risk losing relationships, jobs, lifestyles, and more.**

As it is, considering that their world narrows down to one another in the end and that they are each other’s relationships, **th** **ey’re a special and rare occasion where the social punishments just don’t matter either**. They didn’t have friends and family to lose - they never seemed all that close with their respective sides in the first place. They don’t have to worry about their next meal or where to live or their job. They just get to live and be happy by each other’s side, alongside humanity. 

**It’s almost a queer fantasy,** in a sense, that they can remove themselves from the system and not be hurt by the consequences of their desire. Impossible in real life? Almost certainly. **But that’s why fiction is wonderful.**

**Author's Note:**

> [1] Prior to then, homosexual acts and behaviors were identified and often persecuted, but that doesn’t mean the people doing those acts were considered homosexual. They were convicted of sodomy, of indecency, of deviancy, of perversion, but it was not an identity. He suggests that the reason behind this codification of the homosexual identity is related to the punishment for the behaviors. This is an oversimplification of the issue - he literally wrote books about it - so you can imagine there is much more nuance, but for meta’s sake, here we go. You can’t kick a behavior out of a community, but you can kick a person out. Take that as you will while you think about angels and demons and being cast out from Heaven and Hell. What is a demon but an angel with specific taboo behaviors?


End file.
